alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 22, 1957

No. 60791.

#### Scandinavian Oil Co. *v.*United States,

protest 232873-K.

Shortage of Seal Oil. — C. D. 1863. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
EX-10.1








    Exhibit 10.1



 




    June 26,
    2008
    



 



    Mr. Jesús Reyes Heroles González Garza




    Director General




    Petróleos Mexicanos




    Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329




    Colonia Huasteca C.P. 11311




    México



 



    Dear Mr. Reyes Heroles:



 



    We hereby consent to all references to our firm as set forth in
    the Annual Report on
    Form 20-F
    of Petróleos Mexicanos for the year ended December 31,
    2007, under the heading “Exploration and Production
    (Reserves)”. We reviewed the estimates of proved oil,
    condensate, natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves owned by
    the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) as of
    December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2007 for 273 and
    276 fields, respectively. These estimates were prepared in
    accordance with the reserves definitions of
    Rules 4-10(a)
    (1)-(13) of
    Regulation S-X
    of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The
    fields are located onshore and offshore of Mexico in the
    Northern Region, and are those referenced in our audit letters
    dated July 9, 2007, and February 11, 2008.



 



    Very truly yours,



 


			
	 	     
	
    /s/  Ryder
    Scott Company, L.P.









    RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
**Part 2, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2022 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by OMB and Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
II 

Calendar No. 610 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4016 

To amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to expend amounts in the Colorado River Dam fund, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. KELLY, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. 

PADILLA, and Ms. BUTLER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to expend amounts in the 

Colorado River Dam fund, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Help Hoover Dam 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4016 RS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND AMOUNTS. 

2 Section 2 of the Act of December 21, 1928 (43 

3 U.S.C. 617, et seq.; commonly known as the ‘‘Boulder 

4 Canyon Project Act’’), is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(f) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 

7 expend moneys in the fund, including moneys in account 

8 XXXR5656P1, that were and hereafter are recovered on 

9 a non-reimbursable basis, for any authorized activity, in10 cluding operations, maintenance, investigation and clean11 up actions, and capital improvements, within the Boulder 

12 Canyon Project at Hoover Dam or on land used for the 

13 construction and operation of the Hoover Dam, subject 

14 to the review and approval of in consultation with the 

15 Boulder Canyon Project contractors as identified in the 

16 Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112– 

17 72).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 610 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4016 

A BILL 

To amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act to aufor other purposes. amounts in the Colorado River Dam fund, and thorize the Secretary of the Interior to expend 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported with an amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
From: Phil Hopkinson [mailto:phopkinson@hvolt.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:00 AM

To: Tendulkar, Vijay; Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art

Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris

Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jer emiah; Gary

Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenq uist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry

Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken

Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael

Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Ku mar; Ri chard Parker; Rick

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck;

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: RE: NEMA transformer section comments regarding DOE negotiated rulemaking process and

analysis for distribution transformers

Good com ments VJ

Phil

Philip J Hopk inson, PE

President & CEO HVOLT Inc.

3704 High Ridge Rd.

Charlotte, NC 28270

phopkinson@hvolt.com

Ph 704

‐ 846

‐ 3290

Fx 704

‐ 845

‐ 2520

Cell 704

‐ 236

‐ 3320

www.hvolt.com

From: Tendulkar, Vijay [ mailto:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:42 PM

To: Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint;

Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark;

Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter;

Greg Rosenq uist; Hirsch, Br uce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry

Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat;

Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure,Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob

Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve

Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: NEMA transformer section comments regarding DOE negotiated rulemaking process and

analysis for distribution tra n sformers

TO: Mr. Richard Parker, members of LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members

concerning the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

The basic points presented in the comments are:

1) Limitations of design software

2) Problems with core materi als

3) Difficulties with mixe d low volume production of LVDT by small manufacturers

4) Exemptions for Data Center Transformers and Solar Power Transformers

With Kind Regards,

V. B. Tendulkar
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, D.C. KING, K.J. BRUBAKER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JARREL R. CUFF

PRIVATE (E

- 1), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400252

SPEC IAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 27 March 2014

. Military Judge: LtCol E.A. Harvey, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 1st Supply

Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 15, 1st Marine

Logistics Group, Camp Pendleton, CA

. Staff Judge Advo cate's Recommendation: LtCol E.J. Peterson,

USMC

. For Appellant: CDR Boyce Crocker, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: M r. Brian Keller , Esq

.

11 September 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT

------------------------- --------------------------

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c ).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 23.1





                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                    -------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
registration statements and related prospectuses filed by Mallinckrodt
Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933 of our report dated July 29,
1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Mallinckrodt Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended June 30, 1999:


                          Commission File No.
                       -------------------------


                        Form S-8, No.   2-65727
                        Form S-8, No.   2-80553
                        Form S-8, No.   2-90910
                        Form S-8, No.   2-94151
                        Form S-8, No.  33-10381
                        Form S-8, No.  33-32109
                        Form S-8, No.  33-40246
                        Form S-8, No.  33-43925
                        Form S-8, No. 333-34489
                        Form S-8, No. 333-38291
                        Form S-8, No. 333-38293
                        Form S-3, No. 333-42325
                        Form S-8, No. 333-85789





----------------------
Ernst & Young LLP



St. Louis, Missouri
September 2, 1999
Revolution UAS LLC, 14812 N. 60 th St, Scottsdale, AZ 85254

October 19 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Amendment to Exempti on No. 12640 , Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2422 under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and

1 4 C.F.R. Part 11, Revolution UAS, LLC (Revolution UAS ), se eks to amend exemption No. 12640

, Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2422 ; Submitted by Revolution UAS for review May 27 , 2015 and subsequ ently granted by the FAA on August 27, 2015.

The original exemption made a reques t to allow operations of one a irframe models for conduct ing aerial photography and videography used to support a broad variety of inspect ion a nd ground truth operations.

There have been no changes in the request for exemption from specific regulations or conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

This letter requests the addition of additional Airframe models for commercial use in the aforementioned service operations. We are petitioning for exemption to enable Revolution UAS to operate additional UAS platforms that have been previously approved by exemption or currently
under review. Namely:



###  The DJI Phantom 3 is a quadcopter rotor aircraft that has been included in over 14 exemptions through mid

- June, most notably Nos. 11824, 11837 and 11696 were granted f or use in aerial missions similar to those requested to be conducted by
R evolution UAS

 

### The DJI Inspire 1 is a quadcopter rotor aircraft that has been included in over 95 exemptions through mid

- June, most notably Nos. 11843, 11822, 1177 4 and 117 42

were granted for use in aerial missions similar to those requested to be conducted by
R evolution UAS.

These sUAS all weigh less than 55 lbs, have a built

- in capability to limit the height flown above the ground, to limit the radius of the distance it flies from the operator and to exc lude it from Class B, C and D airspace including a no fly zone feature. Each system also has the failsafe function of the[Type here]

autopilot system, which means when the communication between the Main Controller and the transmitter is lost, the system will automati cally trigger Return to Home and will land safely.

This submission does not include the Operating Manuals for sUAS requested above, as they have been reviewed by the Administrator in granting previous exemptions. Copies of all Operating Manuals for the individual models listed will be submitted on request and are publicly available at
the links below:

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/download

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/download

Regards,

Doug Andriuk
Co

- Founder Revolution UAS, LLC
14812 N. 60 th St Scottsdale, AZ 85254

301

- 266

- 2011
# Bulletin No. 2016-XX

# Additional Information
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: ! v'^Ji^tN! OMartin, Michael (OST) 

Sent: ; ripPQR i ATiO^fiday, January 20, 2012 12:28 PM 

To: ! :: I OPERAT(n^''?'y griffith'; 'mayor@hiwaay.net'; 'steveh@shoalschamber.conn'; 'itsinala@hiwaay.net'; Tom 

1-ieanue'; 'Joshua Abramson'; 'lrodgers@www.greenville.ms.us'; 'mayor@hattiesburgms.com' 

Cc: ':[]n •:ro - A J,CipdyStorl<';'tsieber@seaportair.com';'ticooper@gosunair.com';'Billy Hawkins'; Devany, 

i'LO - / A %&\k h (OST) 

Subject: EAS proposals for Greenville, Hattiesburg/Laurel, Muscle Shoals, and Tupelo 

Attachments: Blue Sky proposal EAS at GLH PIB MSL TUP January 2012.pdf; Proposal to Provide EAS at 

Greenville MS Laurel Hattiesburg MS Muscle Shoals AL Tupelo MS DOT-OST-2008-0209 

DOT-OST-2001-10685 D0T-0ST-2.pdf; SeaPort MSL-GLH-PIB-TUP Proposals 18JAN2012 -

FINAL.pdf; Sun Air EAS proposal for GLH TUP MSL Jan 18 2012.pdf 

Everyone: 

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and Greenville, 

Hattiesburg/Laurel, and Tupelo, Mississippi, and give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we 

submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2011-11-

29, November 23, 2011, soliciting a second round of proposals from carriers interested in providing replacement EAS for 

a new term. In response to our request, four airlines have submitted proposals: 

Air Choice One: proposing to serve all four communities 

Blue Sky Airlines: proposing to serve all four communities 

SeaPort Airlines: proposing to serve all four communities 

Sun Air: proposing to serve Greenville, Muscle Shoals and Tupelo 

I have attached each airline's bid for your review. Please forward this e-mail to all relevant parities that I have not 

included on the distribution list. I expect that each carrier's proposal should be uploaded on www.regulations.gov by 

COB today. We request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have soon as possible, but no 

later than Thursdav. Februarv 23. Please send your comments via e-mail to EAS@dot.gov. If you have any questions, 

feel free to contact me. 

Regards, 

Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

(202) 366-6494
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 September 2006

(2006/C 228/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
No. 57967.

protest 210548-K (New York).

#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2017392EN.01004002.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/40

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council

(Case T-56/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 392/50)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

Line 

No.

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Begin/ 

End

Fed/ 

NonFed

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Reporting 

Type Code

Addl. 

Info.

12.10

12.10 571300 Accrual of Amounts Receivable from Custodian or Non-Entity Assets Receivable from a Federal 

Agency - Other Than the General Fund of the U.S. Government

E F X E/U

12.11

13

Accrual for Agency Amounts to be collected in TAS Other Than the General Fund of the U.S. Government - Exchange (RC 

Other revenue (without reciprocal) (Line inactive for FY 2019) (RC 29) - Footnote 2

Total federal earned revenue

This line is the sum of 12.1 through 12.1110.

Section VI

USSGL Crosswalk - Reclassified Statement of Net Cost

Fiscal Year 2022 Reporting

Bulletin No. 2021-20 Draft IRC August 2021
Case 2:05-cv-05936-RBS Document 27 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 1
Request for Information Ron Greenberg Video and Photo (FAA-2015-2942) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Greenberg: 

 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−2942). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove 

closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response 

date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 19, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 1:55 PM 

To: videoserv2@aol.com
**Part 2, Section I: Chart of Accounts**

The Chart of Accounts provides the basic structure for the U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL). It incorporates both proprietary and budgetary accounts. The proprietary and budgetary sets of general ledger accounts are self balancing (the total debits equal total credits). It is important to note that central agency reporting requires a lower level of detail than the 6-digit USSGL account numbers provided. Therefore, the USSGL Board developed attributes containing various domain values that, when added to a basic 6-digit USSGL account, provide the appropriate level of detail needed for central agency reporting and, in effect, create new USSGL accounts. See Section IV for attribute definitions and domain values. It is this lower level of detail, the basic 6-digit USSGL account plus applicable attribute domain values, that agencies must capture at the transaction level to (1) comply with USSGL policy contained herein, and (2) achieve the desired result for proper reporting.

The basic 6-digit USSGL accounts are classified as follows:

**100000 Assets**

**200000 Liabilities**

**300000 Net Position**

**400000 Budgetary**

**500000 Revenue and Other Financing Sources 600000 Expenses**

**700000 Gains/Losses/Miscellaneous Items**

**800000 Memorandum**

Agencies may expand this numbering system to as many digits as necessary to accommodate agency- specific requirements. However, subsidiary accounts must summarize or “roll up” to the 6-digit USSGL accounts plus any related attributes as defined herein.

In February 1999, the USSGL Board voted to delete summary accounts. However, agencies may summarize accounts as they find useful. Section headings replace many of the deleted summary accounts to maintain the integrity of the account structure.

Page 1 of 1

 (Part 2SUPPLEMENT) (Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection I) (U.S. Standard General LedgerChart of Accounts) (Account Number) (Normal Balance) (Title)

 (Bulletin No. 2019-02) (I CA - 10) (December 2018)

# image1.png
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL REIS, SR. and )

LAWRENCE J. KATZ, on Their Own ) Civil Action

Behalf and as Assignees of ) No. 05-CV-01651

Weaver Nut Company, Inc., )

 )

Plaintiffs )

 )

vs. )

 )

BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT )

& COHEN LLC., )

 )

Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 3 day of July, 2008, upon consideration of rd

the Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Experts or, in the

Alternative, to Extend Deadlines, which motion was filed on

behalf of defendant Barley Snyder Senft & Cohen on November 30,

2007; upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Bar the

Expert Testimony of David Glusman CPA and Thomas Wilkinson, Jr.,

Esquire to the Extent That Their Opinions Do Not ‘Fit’ the Facts

of the Case, which motion was filed April 23, 2008; upon

consideration of the briefs of the parties; after hearing

conducted before the undersigned on May 22 and 27, 2008; and for

the reasons expressed in the accompanying Memorandum, 

Case 2:05-cv-01651-JKG Document 100-2 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 2
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1

125 L.Ed.2d 469, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

By my Order dated December 4, 2007 I granted in part and deferred 2

in part defendant’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Experts or, in the

Alternative, to Extend Deadlines. Specifically, I denied defendant’s motion

insofar as it sought to preclude plaintiffs’ expert from testifying at trial

based upon a violation of my June 29, 2007 Rule 16 Status Conference Order. 

In addition, I granted defendant an enlargement of time to produce a

responsive expert report. Finally, I deferred that portion of defendant’s

motion in the nature of a Daubert motion, which I now deny by this Order and

the accompanying Memorandum.

-iiIT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Preclude

Plaintiffs’ Experts or, in the Alternative, to Extend Deadlines

in the nature of a Daubert motion is denied. 1 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are not precluded

from offering the testimony of their liability expert Professor

Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. at the trial of this action.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion

to Bar the Expert Testimony of David Glusman CPA and Thomas

Wilkinson, Jr., Esquire to the Extent That Their Opinions Do Not

‘Fit’ the Facts of the Case is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant is not precluded

from offering the testimony of either David Glusman, CPA (damages

expert) or Thomas Wilkinson, Jr., Esquire (liability expert).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01651-JKG Document 100-2 Filed 07/03/08 Page 2 of 2